On 14 December 2012 14:29, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +0000 > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100 >> >> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico: >> >>>>> Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just >> >>>>> the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not >> >>>>> require >> >>>>> EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few >> >>>>> people. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sounds good to me. >> >>> >> >>> Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since >> >>> packages are >> >>> then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an >> >>> entirely >> >>> different profile. Not such a great idea. >> >>> >> >>> The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal >> >>> when >> >>> going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use >> >>> flag >> >>> choices, and nothing else. This means most of the testing done with ~arch >> >>> packages is still valid and provides meaningful feedback to maintainers >> >>> and >> >>> arch teams for stabilization. >> >> >> >> Well, it's all a question of decisions, I believe. If we make sure that >> >> the new 'unstable' profiles differ from the 'stable' ones only by >> >> additional masked/unmasked USE flags, I don't think it'd be an issue. >> > >> > Yeah, should be fine. >> >> How are you engoing to ensure that? And how are you going to monitor >> them so they will not get out-of-sync in future? We have plenty of >> examples of stale profile entries >> all over the profiles/arch directory so I think that the stable >> *use.stable.mask will also end up >> unmaintained in the near future. > > What is your solution then? Keeping two revisions of most ebuilds so > that one could be stabilized? I don't see how that is more > maintainable, except for a few days who will easily stay out of it > and pretend that the issue doesn't exist. > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny
By keeping multiple ebuilds around you are transfering the maintenance responsibility to the invdividual developer/herd. By adding the *use.stable.mask to each architecture, you are transferring this responsibility to the arch maintainers. We already have plenty of understaffed arches, I don't think it is wise to throw more responsibilities to them. Unless of course all developers are allowed to touch these *stable* profiles which personally I don't like because arches will lose control of their stable trees. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
